|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result?
Speaking as a Filipino who has been worried for a LONG time about Chinese incursion into my people's waters--I hope they get wrecked by the US. But that's my tribalism talking.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 02:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result? Generally in international relations being not liked is better than being unreliable, and the US is heavily drifting into the direction of not being reliable at all. Also from the Diplomat today: http://thediplomat.com/2017/01/the-resurgence-of-china-vietnam-ties/China is trying to rebuild their relationships in the region consecutively
I don't disagree. The US has been remarkably flaky in recent times when it has come to its commitments abroad, and no one wants to deal with that shit. That gives an opening for China.
But to be perfectly honest, the US has to learn to choose its battles. It can't be involved in every conflict it wishes and it's not really favorably geographically positioned in Asia, so that might just be a conflict to walk away from.
|
On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result?
Maybe. China is a pretty dickish country, praising globalism while telling foreigners to fuck off if they want to have business in China. Having lots of policies that are ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY ELSE WE WILL FIGHT YOU!
With how complacent most countries are being, it'd be nice to see someone tell them to fuck off. In an actual war China would likely lose the most.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result? Speaking as a Filipino who has been worried for a LONG time about Chinese incursion into my people's waters--I hope they get wrecked by the US. But that's my tribalism talking.
History suggests that in such situations, the US would use the Philippines as a means by which to bark at China, but if China attacked, it would retreat and bark loudly from back home.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 02:58 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result? Maybe. China is a pretty dickish country, praising globalism while telling foreigners to fuck off if they want to have business in China. Having lots of policies that are ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY ELSE WE WILL FIGHT YOU! With how complacent most countries are being, it'd be nice to see someone tell them to fuck off. In an actual war China would likely lose the most.
The question is whether they want what they want hard enough to deploy troops to take it. I doubt it but it certainly would be one hell of a policy to attempt to call them on a supposed bluff.
|
On January 25 2017 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The big problem with a federal hiring freeze in the short term is seasonal employment. Parks/the IRS will experience some big problems.
If their budget is the same still they can just bring on contractors instead. It'll cost them more or they'll get slightly fewer employees, but it would mostly fill the employment gaps.
Which is sort of the ridiculousness of the plan when applied so broadly. It's just another business short-sightedness. Like the time someone I know was replaced at work for a cheaper alternative and within a few months they had to have 4 people including several expensive contractors to fulfill their duties.
|
I think how this plays out also depends heavily on how the Chinese economy develops. If they manage to create their own middle-class, advance their own IP and whatnot they'll quickly come into a situation where they actually want to create mutually beneficial trade agreements and integration with Western countries.
If it goes not so well and they have to rely on protectionism this probably won't happen. Pretty hard to tell where they're going at this moment but if the US continues to be obsessed with internal struggles they might just miss out on this and the developing world is pretty eager to make their multipolar world happen anyway.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 03:05 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The big problem with a federal hiring freeze in the short term is seasonal employment. Parks/the IRS will experience some big problems. If their budget is the same they can just bring on contractors. It'll cost them more, but it would fill the employment gaps.
This is what a lot of government agencies do because they can't afford to pay their people real wages.
In the NSA for example, a lot of their best leave, get a job as a contractor, and go back to doing exactly what they were doing, but for triple the price.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:
I think how this plays out also depends heavily on how the Chinese economy develops. If they manage to create their own middle-class, advance their own IP and whatnot they'll quickly come into a situation where they actually want to create mutually beneficial trade agreements and integration with Western countries.
If it goes not so well and they have to rely on protectionism this probably won't happen. Pretty hard to tell where they're going at this moment but if the US continues to be obsessed with internal struggles they might just miss out on this and the developing world is pretty eager to make their multipolar world happen anyway.
China will have to deal with a bubble bursting sooner or later. Anyone who looks at the way China has grown its economy and does not conclude that it consists of a great deal of bullshit is blind. The question, of course, is when that bubble will burst, and whether or not it will recover well afterwards. And I think that we simply don't know how that will play out.
|
On January 25 2017 03:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:05 Logo wrote:On January 25 2017 02:28 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The big problem with a federal hiring freeze in the short term is seasonal employment. Parks/the IRS will experience some big problems. If their budget is the same they can just bring on contractors. It'll cost them more, but it would fill the employment gaps. This is what a lot of government agencies do because they can't afford to pay their people real wages. In the NSA for example, a lot of their best leave, get a job as a contractor, and go back to doing exactly what they were doing, but for triple the price.
I'm curious what can be done about contracting in a general sense. It's a very necessary form of employment for many situations, but it's also incredibly exploitative (in both ways in some sense).
Internationally even, someone I know in Europe was only able to take 1 day off for paternity needs because they were hired as a contractor in what is effectively a full time position (so no paid vacation).
Though that sort of gets into another issue where I find it baffling that anyone is against equal paternity and maternity leave.
|
On January 25 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result? Speaking as a Filipino who has been worried for a LONG time about Chinese incursion into my people's waters--I hope they get wrecked by the US. But that's my tribalism talking. History suggests that in such situations, the US would use the Philippines as a means by which to bark at China, but if China attacked, it would retreat and bark loudly from back home.
I know what the US would do. I have family that had to suffer through Japanese rule--short and brutal as it may be. I know how much loyalty the US has. But I also know that its the PI's best play--and sometimes you have to play to your outs.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
God damn it, Trump's administration taking charge of .gov pages makes it difficult for me to look at any of the releases from old Obama politicians.
On January 25 2017 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 25 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 02:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:China WILL NOT go to war with the US in the topic of the islands. It has ZERO to gain for the losses needed to win (which they won't) China, if forced, WILL use those islands as a staging ground. Its much much easier for China to force America's hand. They have more fishermen and more resources than the neighboring countries do, they can just start using the islands for fishing and force the US to strike first. It will not take much to show the world that Trump is a loose cannon that can't be trusted. People already are in that mindset. And it won't take much to slowly push the message towards a union against the United States. Make tariffs against the US, cut off US production, and unify against Trump--in a Chinese attempt to restore order in the US. They don't need to fire a damn shot to win those islands and the world. People might have problems with the US - but a lot of those countries really don't like China. China itself has not all that many allies and most of its neighbors would be loathe to permit a Chinese garrison on their land. China says they would go to war over the islands - maybe they wouldn't actually do it and they're bluffing but if they're not, would you really be happy about the result? Speaking as a Filipino who has been worried for a LONG time about Chinese incursion into my people's waters--I hope they get wrecked by the US. But that's my tribalism talking. History suggests that in such situations, the US would use the Philippines as a means by which to bark at China, but if China attacked, it would retreat and bark loudly from back home. I know what the US would do. I have family that had to suffer through Japanese rule--short and brutal as it may be. I know how much loyalty the US has. But I also know that its the PI's best play--and sometimes you have to play to your outs.
I guess it's a matter of who ends up being the most powerful in the region. If an American alliance beats China back and see its economy falter in the long term, it might be a smart move. If China continues to grow stronger, you would probably just have to suck it up and make peace with your more immediate neighbors.
|
This is quintessential Trump.
That Donald Trump chose to spend the first 48 hours of his presidency feuding with the news media over crowd sizes, crowing about his win in front of a wall of killed CIA agents, spreading inaccurate information and firing off tweets didn't shock his supporters or critics.
But it showed two likely hallmarks of the Trump administration, according to interviews with people involved in and close to his government.
First, his team will be very combative, even when the facts are not on their side, trusting that their political base dislikes the news media and will believe them no matter what. Sometimes, they are likely to muddy the water or throw a hand grenade into a political debate just to change the headlines.
...
And second, when Trump grows angry, he will usually want the strongest response possible, unless he is told no, and that he will often govern or make decisions based off news coverage.
...
One person who frequently talks to Trump said aides have to push back privately against his worst impulses in the White House, like the news conference idea, and have to control information that may infuriate him. He gets bored and likes to watch TV, this person said, so it is important to minimize that.
This person said that a number of people close to him don't like saying no — but that it has to be done.
"You can't do it in front of everyone," this person said. "He's never going to admit he's wrong in front of everyone. You have to pull him aside and tell him why he's wrong, and then you can get him to go along with you. These people don't know how to get him to do what they need him to do."
Politico
|
I also think it's funny how out of place Trump looks whenever he's supposed to do something presidential. People repeated this "the office changes the man more than the man changes the office" trope the whole time, but I'm not sure that this is going to happen
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump is certainly going to be a very unusual president.
|
On January 25 2017 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:
I also think it's funny how out of place Trump looks whenever he's supposed to do something presidential. People repeated this "the office changes the man more than the man changes the office" trope the whole time, but I'm not sure that this is going to happen
At least it'll be great to see him pardon a turkey.
|
Trump likely met with Russian billionaire Dimitriy Roydovlev, who in 2008 bought a house from him on a small Charlotte tarmac on Nov 3rd. Media should have compared this to Bill and Lynch's meeting.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
On January 25 2017 04:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 04:16 Nyxisto wrote:
I also think it's funny how out of place Trump looks whenever he's supposed to do something presidential. People repeated this "the office changes the man more than the man changes the office" trope the whole time, but I'm not sure that this is going to happen At least it'll be great to see him pardon a turkey.
And make kids uncomfortable at the egg roll.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
As the Trump administration begins planning its outreach to Moscow, one question for the new president will be whether he can persuade Russia to turn away from Iran.
The two countries have grown closer since 2015, when a group of nations lifted some sanctions on Iran in exchange for more transparency about its nuclear program. Russia sells Iran advanced air defense systems, and Iran provides its officers and militias to conquer the Syrian towns and cities indiscriminately bombed by Russian aircraft.
Trump administration officials tell me that they will explore the extent to which Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to end this relationship and cooperate with U.S. policy to counter Iranian aggression in Syria and the Middle East.
"It's important to find out what are the limits of Russia's willingness to cooperate with us with regard to Iran," said Michael Ledeen, who during the transition served as an adviser to Michael Flynn, now Trump's national security adviser. "Those conversations have to take place." Ledeen was Flynn's co-author of "Field of Fight," a 2016 book that outlined the retired general's national security vision.
Source
I kind of think the US missed the boat on that possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
